Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010090682025 2025:GAU-AS:7516 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./1374/2025 CHANDRA SEKHAR TIWARI @ CHANDER SHAKHAR AND ANR S/O VIJAY NATH TIWARI R/O KACHNAWAN P.O.DHAMMAUR P.S.DHAMOUR, IN THE DISTRICT OF SULTANPUR,UTTAR PRADESH-227408. 2: RAMSAGAR TIWARI S/O RAJESH TIWARI R/O KACHNAWAN P.O. DHAMMAUR P.S. DHAMOUR IN THE DISTRICT OF SULTANPUR UTTAR PRADESH- 227408 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M SAHEWALLA, MS T J SAHEWALLA Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 09.06.2025 Page No.# 2/5 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M. Sahewalla for the petitioners Chandra Sekhar Tiwari @Chander Shakhar and Ramsagar Tiwari, who have filed this application under Section 483 of the BNSS 2033 with prayer for bail as they are behind bars since 20.09.2023 in connection with NDPS case number 125/2023 arising out of Bazaricherra P.S. Case No. 188/2023 under Section 22(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. 2. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. P. Borthakur for the respondent State. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that up to 20.09.2024, only 3 out of 9 witnesses have been examined. The petitioners were not aware of the transportation of the contraband. The petitioners are the driver and the handyman of the truck. The petitioners were not at all aware that the 215 cartons of cough syrup containing codeine phosphate were illegal contraband. They are entitled to bail as the trial has been procrastinated by the State and by the Court. 4. It is submitted that despite being behind bars since 20.09.2023, the Court was successful in examining only 3 out of 9 witnesses and thus the culmination of the trial appears to be remote due to the trend of procrastination. 5. The petitioners relied on the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court reported in 2025 (2) GLT 231, wherein it has been observed that:- “ There is another aspect of the matter which deserves consideration at this stage. The allegation in the present case relates to an accused being involved in an FIR relating to commercial quantity of a contraband under the Act of 1985. While considering a bail pe-tition in a case involving commercial quantity, Page No.# 3/5 the Court has to keep in mind the rigours enu-merated under Section 37 of the Act of 1985, which mandate that the Court can grant bail to an accused only after hearing the public prosecutor and after having satisfied itself of the twin conditions which are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged/alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The stringent rigours of Section 37 of the Act of 1985 must be meticulously scruti-nized against the backdrop of the accused's fundamental rights to speedy trial. The right to life and personal liberty cannot be rendered mugatory for unwarranted delays in the judi-cial process, particularly where such delay(s) Is neither attributable to the accused nor jus-tified at the end of the prosecution by cogent reasons. An individual cannot be kept behind d bars for an inordinate period of time by tak-ing shelter to the rigours laid down in Section 37 of the Act of 1985. The legislature in its wisdom, in order to ensure speedy and timely disposal of the cases under the Act of 1985 had provided for constitution of special courts under Section 36-A of the Act of 1985. How-ever, this Court cannot turn a blind eye to the protracted delays and the systematic ineffi-ciency that frustrate this legislative purpose. A Court of law is duty-bound to ensure that it does not become complicit in violation of an individual's fundamental rights, notwithstand-ing anything contained in a statute. While deal-ing with a bail petition in a case governed by the rigours of Section 37 of the Act of 1985, this Court must strike a judicial balance be-tween the legislative intent to curb the men-ace of drugs and the sacrosanct right of the accused to a fair and expeditious trial. Pro-longed incarceration, without justifiable cause, risks transforming pre-trial detention into pu- Page No.# 4/5 nitive imprisonment, an outcome antithetical to the principle of justice and equity. “ 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised serious objection stating that the petitioners are not entitled to bail considering the gravity of the offence. The length of detention is not required to be considered in heinous offences. 3 witnesses have already been examined and trial is proceeding at a regular pace. The petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. 8. I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners. It appears that culmination of trial appears to be remote. The petitioners have been behind bars since 16.09.2023. 9. I have considered the submission that the petitioners are willing to cooperate with the trial. The petitioners are willing to furnish suitable surety and to abide by any stringent bail conditions if imposed upon them. 10. Considering all aspects, both the petitioners are enlarged on bail of Rs. 1 lac each with two local sureties of like amount, one being a government employee to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court under the conditions that:- (i) the petitioners shall refrain from such activities with which they alleged, and (ii) the petitioners shall not jump the bail. 11. On breach of any of the bail conditions, the learned Trial Court is at liberty to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner. JUDGE Page No.# 5/5 Comparing Assistant